I tried to help an older man escape 40 years of domestic abuse only to have his spouse force him to make false stalking complaints so police would prevent contact as she was determined to keep his financial support for life, and keep up appearances. I was summonsed and the matter went to court.
However, as I had irrefutable documented proof that I was Not Guilty of anything, my lawyer ($2,000 retainer) believed the charges would be withdrawn immediately. she had contact with the Prosecutor. Not so. The Prosecutor immediately asked for an adjournment to read my lawyer's correspondence ($450 legal fees), so when she contacted my lawyer 3 weeks later, we believed she knew what had happened.
Instead without knowing my defence (and it turned out, without opening the Police brief) she advised Prosecutions' determination (withdrawal of charges - because I had pleaded Not Guilty, not because she knew the evidence - contingent on a groundless Intervention Order which ensured Prosecutions had another win, but which would prevent me ever working again).
When I would not consent, the games began - one adjournment after another to ramp up my legal fees and force my consent to the groundless IVO! I insisted on a trial, she cancelled it, emailing my lawyer (I have her email) that whilst my evidence proved the accusations false, the Magistrate had agreed I should have an IVO without grounds (something a Magistrate would never do) and because the alleged victim still wanted it?
I took the matter to 2 revocation hearings where the two Magistrates, having read the Police brief and my evidence, confirmed the required abuse was not present so there had been no grounds for the IVO. Both encourage me to pursue the Prosecutions' complaint and to that end agreed to my purchasing transcripts, believing the entire hearing was recorded, but the transcripts showed the entire discussion part of the hearings had been deleted, so the tapes ran for only 10 minutes each
instead of the full 30 minutes of the hearings, and there was nothing on tape to support me.
Eventually, I breached the conditions of the IVO to warn the alleged victim (himself a victim of abuse) that Police Prosecutions knew the accusations were false (he was so afraid of his spouse's threats of poverty, eviction and humiliation that he did whatever she wanted, and because she found out I had been in touch, he was forced to again make a false complaint - there had been no repercussions so far) and when the breach matter went to Court, the Prosecutor of the day read the Police brief, realised Prosecutions could not risk having me again expose them in front of yet another Magistrate for the Court record, so withdrew the allegation, no explanation was given.
There have now been 12 hearings, and I have proved the accusations false 4 times, but Prosecutions will never cancel the IO and remove me from Police records or my DNA from the Police Criminal Data Base as to do so would draw attention to their long-term routine abuse of process. As a result of Prosecutions' long-term abuse of process over a number of Magistrates Courts, 7,000+ IVOs have been granted in South Australia since the Prevention of Abuse (Intervention Orders) Act 2009 became law, obviously many on false accusations by alleged victims who have exploited Police procedures at Station level, followed by the routine abuse of process by Prosecutors in the respective Magistrates Courts.
The victims of false accusations have been punished, and the alleged victims who lied continually have got off when they should have been charged with making false statements (2 years gaol max.) and false Affidavits (14 years gaol).
My question is, who is responsible for the performance of Prosecutors on matters of Intervention Order in Magistrates Court? It seems that no-one is.
I complained to the Police Commissioner but was told that complaints against Police are handled by the Police Complaints Authority (now Office of Police Ombudsman), but they are totally hopeless, pruning off 2/3 of complaints without reading them. They used to provide "determinations" regardless and denied reviews, not they claim that not enough evidence has been provided, but how would they know that when they don't even read the complaints before pruning them off?
However, as I had irrefutable documented proof that I was Not Guilty of anything, my lawyer ($2,000 retainer) believed the charges would be withdrawn immediately. she had contact with the Prosecutor. Not so. The Prosecutor immediately asked for an adjournment to read my lawyer's correspondence ($450 legal fees), so when she contacted my lawyer 3 weeks later, we believed she knew what had happened.
Instead without knowing my defence (and it turned out, without opening the Police brief) she advised Prosecutions' determination (withdrawal of charges - because I had pleaded Not Guilty, not because she knew the evidence - contingent on a groundless Intervention Order which ensured Prosecutions had another win, but which would prevent me ever working again).
When I would not consent, the games began - one adjournment after another to ramp up my legal fees and force my consent to the groundless IVO! I insisted on a trial, she cancelled it, emailing my lawyer (I have her email) that whilst my evidence proved the accusations false, the Magistrate had agreed I should have an IVO without grounds (something a Magistrate would never do) and because the alleged victim still wanted it?
I took the matter to 2 revocation hearings where the two Magistrates, having read the Police brief and my evidence, confirmed the required abuse was not present so there had been no grounds for the IVO. Both encourage me to pursue the Prosecutions' complaint and to that end agreed to my purchasing transcripts, believing the entire hearing was recorded, but the transcripts showed the entire discussion part of the hearings had been deleted, so the tapes ran for only 10 minutes each
instead of the full 30 minutes of the hearings, and there was nothing on tape to support me.
Eventually, I breached the conditions of the IVO to warn the alleged victim (himself a victim of abuse) that Police Prosecutions knew the accusations were false (he was so afraid of his spouse's threats of poverty, eviction and humiliation that he did whatever she wanted, and because she found out I had been in touch, he was forced to again make a false complaint - there had been no repercussions so far) and when the breach matter went to Court, the Prosecutor of the day read the Police brief, realised Prosecutions could not risk having me again expose them in front of yet another Magistrate for the Court record, so withdrew the allegation, no explanation was given.
There have now been 12 hearings, and I have proved the accusations false 4 times, but Prosecutions will never cancel the IO and remove me from Police records or my DNA from the Police Criminal Data Base as to do so would draw attention to their long-term routine abuse of process. As a result of Prosecutions' long-term abuse of process over a number of Magistrates Courts, 7,000+ IVOs have been granted in South Australia since the Prevention of Abuse (Intervention Orders) Act 2009 became law, obviously many on false accusations by alleged victims who have exploited Police procedures at Station level, followed by the routine abuse of process by Prosecutors in the respective Magistrates Courts.
The victims of false accusations have been punished, and the alleged victims who lied continually have got off when they should have been charged with making false statements (2 years gaol max.) and false Affidavits (14 years gaol).
My question is, who is responsible for the performance of Prosecutors on matters of Intervention Order in Magistrates Court? It seems that no-one is.
I complained to the Police Commissioner but was told that complaints against Police are handled by the Police Complaints Authority (now Office of Police Ombudsman), but they are totally hopeless, pruning off 2/3 of complaints without reading them. They used to provide "determinations" regardless and denied reviews, not they claim that not enough evidence has been provided, but how would they know that when they don't even read the complaints before pruning them off?
